Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

gottabeme writes "Jim Gettys, one of the original X Window System developers and editor of the HTTP/1.1 spec, has posted a series of articles on his blog detailing his research on the relatively unknown problem of bufferbloat. Bufferbloat is affecting the entire Internet, slowly worsening as RAM prices drop and buffers enlarge, and is causing latency and jitter to spike, especially for home broadband users. Unchecked, this problem may continue to deteriorate the usability of interactive applications like VOIP and gaming, and being so widespread, will take years of engineering and education efforts to resolve. Being like 'frogs in heating water,' few people are even aware of the problem. Can bufferbloat be fixed before the Internet and 3G networks become nearly unusable for interactive apps?"

A number of readers are sending in links related to Anonymous, the Internet phenomenon — don't call them a group — behind the controversial DDoS attacks on commercial entities that fail to support WikiLeaks. The best insight into Anonymous comes from the Economist's Babbage blogger, who hung out in one of their IRC channels. Reader nk497 points out that UK users looking to join Anonymous's DDoS army should be aware they could face a jail term of up to two years; simply downloading the LOIC software used in the DDoSing could suffice to earn a conviction. One 16-year-old has been arrested in The Netherlands and is charged with participating in the DDoS. Reader ancientribe sends in coverage of a claim by one security outfit that several existing criminal botnets have joined forces with Anonymous's Operation: Payback. And reader Stoobalou notes a Thinq.co.uk story on a manifesto of sorts that purports to come from "ANON OPS," even though Anonymous disclaims any central spokesperson or entity (press release here, PDF).

SpuriousLogic writes "Does happiness rise with income? In one of the more scientific attempts to answer that question, researchers from Princeton have put a price on happiness. It's about $75,000 in income a year. They found that not having enough money definitely causes emotional pain and unhappiness. But, after reaching an income of about $75,000 per year, money can't buy happiness. More money can, however, help people view their lives as successful or better. The study found that people's evaluations of their lives improved steadily with annual income. But the quality of their everyday experiences — their feelings — did not improve above an income of $75,000 a year. As income decreased from $75,000, people reported decreasing happiness and increasing sadness, as well as stress. The study found that being divorced, being sick and other painful experiences have worse effects on a poor person than on a wealthier one."

jcatcw writes "A university network is brought down when two network cables are plugged into the wrong hub. An employee is injured after an ill-timed entry into a data center. Overheated systems are shut down by a thermostat setting changed from Fahrenheit to Celsius. And, of course, Big Red Buttons. These are just a few of the data center disasters caused by human folly."

Has Cringely ever been right with one of his predictions/theories? I like the guy a lot, and his ideas are always pretty interesting, but somehow I never hear a follow up where someone says "Yep, he was right!"

blackbeak writes "The BBC today characterized those who avoid GM foods as overly fussy, the very same day that the Wall Street Journal announced that picky eating may be recognized in the 2013 DSM as a psychiatric disorder. The DSM item refers to something completely different, though I'm sure many will confuse the two. Of course, this was not done without subterfuge; the BBC's author, Professor Jonathan Jones, in no way indicates his close ties to Monsanto. Point by point Jones regurgitates the same pro-GM arguments debunked numerous times all over the net for years, while serving up some stale half facts too."

dwguenther writes "A Lyons (Colorado) area woman with no academic pedigree has published a scientific paper in the International Journal of Forestry Research about the adverse effects of radio waves on aspen seedlings. Katie Haggerty, who lives north of Steamboat Mountain, found in a preliminary experiment done near her house that aspens shielded from electromagnetic radiation were healthier than those that were not. 'I found that the shielded seedlings produced more growth, longer shoots, bigger leaves, and more total leaf area. The shielded group produced 60 percent more leaf area and 74 percent more shoot length than a mock-shielded group,' she said." This was not a definitive study, as its author readily admits — it's hard to see how a double-blind study could even be designed in this area — but it was refereed.

When Microsoft's Kin was released a month ago, it came with the usual sequence of tittilating leaks (project Pink), a swell of coverage leading to liveblogging of the release press conference, and an advertising blitz impressive in its scope. Since it's supposed to be a social phone of course it has numerous fansites including Facebook and Twitter. Of course there's a Wikipe

theodp writes "Provoked by an iPad ad promising a 'revolution,' Valleywag's Ryan Tate fired off a late-night missive to Steve Jobs. Jobs responded, and the two engaged in an after-midnight e-mail debate over lockdown, Cocoa vs. Flash, battery life, and whether 'freedom from porn' is a bug or a feature. 'The times they are a changin',' quipped Jobs, 'and some traditional PC folks feel like their world is slipping away. It is.' Tate was unswayed by the Apple CEO's reality distortion field, but did come away impressed by Jobs' willingness to spar one-on-one over his beliefs — at two in the morning on a weekend."

No, 'acting like a know-it-all' is that all-too-common, elitist, egotistical, whiney, snide attitude that many nerds tend to exhibit.
A nerd who is able to communicate in a socially acceptable and 'normal' manner is a lot more valuable than an awkward whiney stubborn tryhard who always has to be heard. Sometimes less is more, and it's better to just keep your mouth shut.
I completely agree with the original point - the MOST important thing is not to act like a know-it-all. Show some common sense. Don't act like you're better than others. Be humble. People like an easy going person more than an uptight weirdo. Wait until you settle in and get to know the system and people before you start suggesting improvements. My work has fired the last 2 developers that exhibited that know-it-all type of personality, and I was glad to see them go. In one of the cases I laughed until my throat hurt.

cable card sucks no VOD no PPV no SDV (most tv) Tivo can do SDV. Also you don't get the cable co guide. Also network affiliated broadcasts are in clear QAM on cable but not the other stuff on most systems.

also sectv let's you Purchase CableCARD for a one-time fee of $125.00 and receive a one-year warranty on the CableCARD from the manufacture so you never have to worry about rental fees again!

and they let you Access to HD Pay-Per-View events with them as well.

they also have Standard Digital Converter... $2.95 / mo has VOD and on screnn guild. one of the same boxes that comcast wants $5+/m for.

My coding philosophy has always been to keep the code as simple as possible. Especially after being the victim of so many over engineered pieces of programming.

When I first left Uni I went to a big defence contracting company and went from graduate programmer to work area lead in 8 weeks, as much out of circumstance as capability (ie there was no one else to take the position of that work area lead). I did good work, and just as importantly (as I was told my management during my work review) by being a happy person and having good morale that brushed off onto others. No matter what stress we were under I just went around be happy and relaxed laughing and whatnot. At other jobs people have also commented on how it was nice having someone around that wasn't acting all stressed out during the crunch times.

Happy and helpful. Thats what I have always been at my jobs, and it works.

RGB is confined color space, and adding yellow would greatly improve the accuracy of the display. It would allow the monitor to display CIE L*a*b color. The "L" channel stands for luminance; the "a" channel is green and magenta; and the "b" channel is blue and yellow.
Theoretically it covers the entire visual gamut - that is, all that our eyes can see. While it may not be entirely noticeable in a medium like TV, you can bet that photographers will happily buy the monitors.

The problem with profiling is, as Schneier points out every time it is mentioned, that any known focus on certain entities means there's now known to be less focus on specific other entities.

This isn't some problem with it being done 'badly', this is how that works. By definition, focus in one area removes focus in other areas. Saying 'we will profile these people' is the same as saying 'We are not going to look as closely at people who are not those people'.

Which, as even utter morons should realize, means that terrorists will either use said people, or at least faking being said people.

Ergo, the only profiling that doesn't reduce security is profiling of things that are unalterable and unforgable.

Behavioral profiling, for example, makes sense...it's very very hard to train people not to act nervously. Ergo, singling people out on the basis of that might make sense. Or might not...it's just a possibility of what might be a good idea, as opposed to profiling on the basis of people wearing red shirts, which would obviously be stupid.

Some other stuff makes sense...for example, terrorists need to be trained, and for various reasons, said training can only happen in a few countries, so we can increase security on this people. Although, like I said, once we start doing that it wouldn't be long until they're using people who we don't know went to those countries. But that, at least, has a moderately high fence to climb, and requires prep work we can catch them in.

Of course, your idea about how profiling works and the idea we can profile 'Muslims' is actually even stupider. We actually could profile everyone under five feet tall, although, duh, terrorists would either buy lifts or just use tall people, so that would be stupid.

But we couldn't profile 'Muslims', even if it wasn't a stupid idea. There's no magical indicator what religion people follow. Hell, they don't even have to 'fake' being another religion. It's like profiling people who 'have a pet cat'...the government has no idea who the hell has a pet cat. I guess we could start registering people for that, but, constitutional questions about having to register your religion aside, I suspect terrorists would just lie.

Although we could profile 'People with obvious external Muslim indicators', which manages to be even stupider. It's like profiling people flying with cat food. Quick, throw your prayer mats in the trash, we have to get on the plane!

I suspect you mean we'd profile Arabs, and have apparently completely forgotten the fact that something like half of all Muslims in the world are non-Arabic. In fact, in the US, Muslims are 26% Arab, 34% South Asian, 24% African-American, and 15% other. Now, in the US, we usually mistake 'South Asian' for Arabic, but even then, that still leaves 40% of all Muslims unaccounted for. (And before you say 'They aren't terrorists', two words: DC Sniper.)

And plenty of Arabs aren't Muslims, and there are other swarthy ethnicities that are often hard to distinguish from Arab. Are you going to start profiling Hindus (Aka, South Asians.) and Hispanics? No? Well, Arab terrorists will use those identities.

In short, profiling is another word for 'Making a list of people who go through less security screening', and profiling 'Muslims' is, well, pretty clear evidence you'd an idiot. Even 'people who look Arabic' would be pretty stupid, but 'Muslim' is, well, so stupid you just need to shut up forever.